List of lists of mathematical topics

Not to be confused with list of mathematical topics. (the latter is perhaps by far the longest topics list on Wikipedia).

This may be Wikipedia's best list. Michael Hardy 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*ROTFLMAO*OMG*ROTFLMAO*ROTFLMAO* *Cries from laughing* *

choches on his own laughter* *LOL* aaaw, thanks for the laugh :D. Good joke! meta-meta list on math topics being complete *SOB*laughter* Russel's paradox good one, good one, bdjon all the way! Project2501a 11:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Project2501a's comment above was completely unwarranted. I think there are better and more polite ways to express one's amusement online. This is a good faith nomination and editors should get a little bit more respect for their work. Note that I have nothing to do with this article, by the way. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Project2501a was not laughing at the nomination, nominator, or choice of articles, but reading in an unintentional joke that Nichalp made. Dysprosia 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm willing to understand that. Just remember that jokes without context are not funny. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the "standards" are either (see my comment below) but here is what is written about the criteria: Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice some of the other lists have a small amount of expository material. Maybe we could work some of this in? For instance, before listing the subsection consisting of lists of lists of algebra topics, perhaps a brief (2-4 sentence or so) description of algebra as a subject? This would not interfere too much with the organisation, and it might actually help people, as they might see topics they don't know exactly what they are, but can get a brief idea from a few sentences. Revolver 00:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People are always asking for annotation, 'added value', spoonful of sugar to help the medecine go down (in the most delightful way ...). The fact is that long comprehensive lists anyway save readers huge amounts of time. Those opposing, I think, mostly weren't around when there was one (1) of these lists, the group theory one. For the rest you had to look through the master list. (And there were no categories).Charles Matthews 11:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that it is useful, but then, so what? The Main Page is very close to satisfying the definition of a featured list, except for the stability criterion (which could be waived since there's nothing that can be done about it). I'll happily claim that Main Page is even more useful than the List of lists of mathematical topics, but that doesn't prompt me to nominate it. So, the List of lists ... is terribly useful. So, what? Cheers, Ben Cairns 12:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Now you put it that way - I see have been deluded. Of course, we should all argue for the Main Page to be the featured article, on the Main Page. Probably daily. Think what a lot of time that would save, if we didn't have to discuss FAs at all. Inspired! Charles Matthews
With regard to some of the recent changes: I like the direction the List of lists ... is going, especially with the one-or-two line descriptions that have very recently been added. These edits seem still to be a work in progress so, with regret, I don't feel I can change my vote. But, assuming things continue on their current course, I think it is likely that I would support featuring this list as soon as it has settled down again. Ben Cairns 13:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
PS. A historical list, e.g. a timeline, would be nice to have as well, but that's a topic for another article. —Steven G. Johnson
There is timeline of mathematics, a very poor article IMO. Charles Matthews
  1. the opening paragraph is irrelevant, it simply says this is a list of lists.
  2. the list is bland, just wikilinks with no explanation to anything
  3. images seem slapped on without any real effort given to making them really relevant, only a couple have explanations.
  4. List of lists is not a very good title.
  5. No external links to any math sites.
I see lots of arguing from the pro list people, but nothing that is trying to make it better. --Cloveious 05:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cloveious wrote: "images seem slapped on without any real effort given to making them really relevant". All of the images are placed next to the corresponding subject matter. Michael Hardy 00:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A word of warning here: Categorization in mathematics is an inherently difficult enterprise in general because it potentially creates artificial subdivisions or supports a hierarchical/top-down view of the matter. Better keep things pragmatic (in the direction navigational guideline, not too much of classification overload).
Some specific remarks on the present shape of the list (organization/categorization):
These remarks of course reflect a subjective point of view. With some improvements, the list of lists might turn into a useful/usable organisational/navigational tool.

--212.18.24.11 12:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article makes no assertions, other than the self-evident fact the articles listed are Wikipedia articles, so what would you reference? Paul August ☎ 05:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the article makes no assertions is exactly the problem. Since it makes no assertions, it has no stand-alone value. Don't get me wrong, this is a great navigational tool, but navigational tools aren't valuable as encyclopedic content. In my opinion, the logical next step to featuring a list like this is to feature a disambiguation page. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what would be wrong with Smith as FA? Charles Matthews
Apparently nothing. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should feature whatever is great. By the way it is more than just a navigational aid, it helps explicate the structure of mathematics and mathematical knowledge, and it also demonstrates the breadth of coverage of mathematics on WP. It is truly an extraordinary list. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that it's mostly useful as a navigational tool (other Wikipedia articles list areas of mathematics), but I think that shouldn't mean that it can't be a featured list. I do realize that this would be a first in some sense. However, I disagree that it's not much better than a simple category. If you use subcategories, you can't have everything on one page. Categories are also alphabetically ordered, which is not logical (for instance, "basic mathematics" should be before "advanced mathematics"). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously this list is not only a navigational tool, but I don't think we should a priori declare disambiguation pages or the like ineligible merely because typical ones are puny little things.
I have now added an external link to the American Mathematical Society's mathematics subject classification. To imitate that here would be a stupid mistake; the purposes are different. Some of the seemingly oddball things on this list are NOT "areas of mathematics" but are very good things, as may be seen by looking at them. For example, list of exponential topics, list of factorial and binomial topics. I wouldn't have guessed that lists with titles like that could be so enlightening. Michael Hardy 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  1. This is just an index of some WP articles, it has no standalone value, so I don't think it can meet the featured list criteria, jguk
  2. How is it useful? Is it complete? Nichalp
  3. think it's a great list of lists, but I don't think it's a great list. It's a table of contents of the Mathematics section of the Wikipedia, not a list for reference purposes like the other featured lists. While it meets the letter of most or even all of the criteria, I don't think it meets the established spirit. I think that if it had more than just links and a few token (although well-chosen!) images, then I might feel differently. Sorry: I really like it a lot, and it is certaintly a wonderful resource, but as it stands some other kind of recognition would be better, IMO. Ben Cairns
  4. An interesting list, but I must admit I've never had occasion to encounter or use it. ... Besides the occasional odd classifications, I would prefer something that had at least a few words in each topic to give a hint as to what they are and how they are related to one another. As it is, the user doesn't have a clue without clicking on hundreds of links. Steven G. Johnson
  5. After reading what everyone here has had to say, I'm still not convinced of the list's usefulness. And I'm also not terribly happy with the way it is currently organised. Dmharvey
  6. For reasons stated above, and change to Index of mathematical topics Cloveious
To go through some of the issues raised here:
  • Completeness. I have seen no evidence raised by anyone that isn't as complete as it can be.
  • Organisation. The debate on how best to orgainse maths topics is long one that probably won't ever be resolved. (See the talk pages on any of Mathematics, Areas of mathematics, or List of lists of mathematical topics itself). What matters is that any classification eneables one to find the topics one wants quickly. Although people have asked why a particular list is one place rather than another, no-one has said they haven't been able to find what they want quickly.
  • Usefulness: list of mathematical topics is waaaaaaaaay to big for quick reference. It is more an index than a way of navigating a desired article. This is the best way to seek out an maths article.
  • Topic explanation: Good point... although Areas of mathematics covers this better. Perhaps a reference to it would help. I think it is better to assume that those using it know what they are looking for. That said, some brief explanation might be desireable.
  • Name: Being debated... see articles talk page for details.
EDIT... Oops, never signed this bit. Tompw 22:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expert interest: looking through the votes, not suprisingly, the math types strong support it, and some whom I guess aren't math types just don't get it. I hope that they can take our word for it that we with math training, who neccessarily must bear the brunt of the work in adding and improving math-related articles here, very much appreciate how critical good organization is to explaining such a tightly interconnectd and highly technical field as mathematics, where precision and avoiding confusion of terminology and notation is so important. Without this list, it would be much harder to avoid reinventing the wheel. ---CH (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing how you come to this conclusion—any objections are presumed to be by "non-math types." Tautology, anyone?  :-) —Steven G. Johnson 17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, I think you're misreading this: he said "some whom [sic] I guess aren't math types just don't get it"; this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who opposes doesn't get it and is "not a math type". I'm guessing what happened is that Hillman read the comments accompanying the first (and so, most conspicuous) two votes, and he meant that those two "just don't get it". They do seem to be non-math types who don't get it. You, on the other hand, are obviously a "math type". Michael Hardy 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought, maybe if more time was spent addressing the objections then posting in talk pages for support votes, this might not fail --Cloveious 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that may well be true, the same could be said of most Wikipedia articles with a hefty talk page. (If everyone who disbelieved the solution to the Monty Hall problem spent as much time learning probability theory as they did disputing it....) Tompw 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that my objection, quoted above at number 3, has addressed. My opposition is not that it doesn't satisfy the letter of the description of a good featured list (which does not, incidentally, define a list! [Oops -- I must be blind]). Rather, I think that pure meta-lists, without additional content like one-line descriptions or an opening paragraph that gives a good overview, are NOT good examples of lists that we want to hold up to the public. They might be suitable featured indices or tables of contents or whatever, but comparison to the current set of featured lists (the precedents) suggests to me that this list of lists is not in the right format. I don't think we should be so keen to have a Mathematics featured list that usefulness (great as it might be) is sufficient to give support. I think that these objections could be addressed by (a) changing the name, and (b) adding content to the list so it bears information about something other than the WP. If this is too big a job, then it is not ready to be featured. Cheers, Ben Cairns 10:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Being a partial reply to Dmharvey's question posted above

OK, I hear all of this, but the usefulness criterion asks that the list "covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic". You are arguing that the list is useful for browsing, and I completely agree with you on this point. However I don't think it's that useful for research. One doesn't go out and do research on "Mathematics"; the scope is far too broad. I'm sure you'll agree that the scope of each list currently at Wikipedia:Featured lists is much narrower. Perhaps this list can and should be awarded praise and recognition in some other way, but it doesn't seem to fit with the other featured lists. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, why the preconceptions? It is just not true that one can scrape up easily on the Web a page that lays out mathematics for you, and puts you two clicks away from a reasonable introduction to most of it. Charles Matthews 09:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-maths type, might I just say: Exactly, Charles! Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have identified a deficiency in the official list of criteria: instead of saying "researching", it should say "trying to learn about"; the difference is that "researching" is narrowly goal-directed and excludes browsing to find out what you don't know. Browsing is important to learning. Michael Hardy 20:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The list is indeed excellent for browsing. My vote would probably change to "support" if either (a) the list criteria were broader (e.g. the way Michael Hardy suggests above), or (b) this nomination was moved from "featured list" nomination to some other kind of nomination that was more appropriate. My preferred outcome is that the list gets a new name, something along the lines of "Index of Mathematics Topics", and becomes more prominently linked to from Category:Mathematics, which itself is linked to from the main page. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the dichotomy being put forward here: browsing is part of researching, since part of researching a topic is firming up one's grasp of the general area around the specific problem domain; at least that's involved in how I do research. No change in the list criteria is needed to accomodate this candidate. --- Charles Stewart 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but browsing around the specific problem domain is not what this list is good for. This list is an overview of all mathematics on wikipedia. If you were researching the "general area around the specific problem domain", you would use the more specialised topic lists, the "See Also" sections on an individual article, etc. On the other hand, if you can give me specific examples of when you (or someone else) has used this list to do the kind of research you have in mind, I might be persuaded to change my mind. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give any concrete examples, but I can give a hypothetical, to show how the list of lists is better than a separate set of lists: if a computer scientist with a bit of mathematical culture were to begin researching Boolean algebra using WP, no doubt before long they would discover the List of Boolean algebra topics. They'd be wise not just to restrict themselves to this, but to step up to the list of lists and discover that (i) Boolean algebra is related to topics under both algebra and logic, (ii) see that there is a glossary of ring theory, (iii) see that Boolean algebra is related to commutative algebra and so take a look at the List of commutative algebra topics, (iv) discover the fascinating topic of sheaves and schemes, (v) so be in a better position to understand something of Stone duality from the Boolean algebra list, (vi) and also be in a position to appreciate the relationship between this and applications of category theory in computer science. All of these steps could be made just by hops from article to article, but how much easier when one has a large view map of the area. --- Charles Stewart 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to look a little better. Any more examples anyone? Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that "list of lists of..." is not the most euphonious or otherwise best name, especially since it makes it necessary to add "(not to be confused with "list of...)", but I haven't seen an alternative I like. "Index of..." doesn't really convey what this list is and how it differs from things like "list of mathematical topics" or "areas of mathematics", etc. Michael Hardy 23:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two I much prefer "List of lists … ", since it is more descriptive. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is proposing list of mathematical lists. How 'bout that one? Michael Hardy 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose that name, I don't see how it is particularly better though. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To see how it's better, consider a page titled "list of lists of lists of lists of omphalological topics". Counting how many times it says "list of" is mentally uncomfortable, as if you're mentally translating it from a foreign language as you're reading it. A certain amount of that discomfort begins when you say "list of lists of ...". So "list of mathematical topics lists" avoids that. Michael Hardy 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from a WP:FLC director

At present, only myself remains of those who have regularly promoted or failed FLCs (the other WPian carrying out the role has been User:ALoan, who is on leave. In making these comments I am conscious of my own comment above (together with my knowledge that I do have a first class honours degree in mathematics, so that I do know a little bit about what the subject area is). Let me stress that I have no problem with being outvoted - my only concern here is whether the promotion criteria have been met.

The general criterion for promotion, although not explicitly stated, is that there should be consensus that a list should be promoted, without there being a "killer" objection (eg copyvio, FL criterion clearly failed) after 10 days, with an additional 4 days to the candidacy period being added in case of doubt. To my mind "consensus" is clearly present where there is 80%+ support, and may be present on 70%+ (as a rough guide). By my calculations there is currently 74% support. This makes it a grey area. On the plus side, many of the objections are of the nature of "does the nature of this list make it suitable to be a FL". Since the concept of FL is developing and is fairly new, whilst I see this as a valid objection, I do not see it as a "killer" that would fail a nomination despite there otherwise being consensus. On the minus side, I am concerned that Michael Hardy has been actively campaigning on a lot of people's talk pages in favour of the nomination. I see nothing wrong in the note on a relevant WikiProject page or on talk pages of those who have actively contributed to creating the list, or who have previously expressed an interest in it - but to my mind the overuse of notifying people on their talk pages swayed the vote in one direction.

In summary, I still see this nomination in the balance, and therefore think it should be given the whole fortnight to allow for additional comments and further improvements. In particular, there are objections above that are not related to whether the list is in principle capable of being a featured list - for instance User:Bjcairns, User:Stevenj, User:OpenToppedBus make valid comments that have not been addressed. I intend keeping the nomination open to 01:03 on 25 October to allow for these issues (and others) to be addressed - and also to allow other users to offer comments on whether the list should or should not be promoted, jguk 20:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In re "actively campaigning": A a few dozen talk pages, I asked people to vote on this; I did not ask them to vote in favor of it; I just said "please vote" (and linked to this page). Only in response to comments people have made have I said anything else about this on people's talk pages. Michael Hardy 00:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who was asked to vote and who opposes the featuring of this list (at this stage), I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to vote as Michael Hardy did. I felt no pressure to support the nomination. Most of the names that I recognise here are (or, like me, have been at times) more than just casual contributors to mathematics articles, so this nomination will be of interest to them. This kind of connection between users has helped make mathematics one of the most complete sections of the WP. Ben Cairns 13:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not too worried about that bit. The most important thing to do to make sure the list gets promoted is to address those objections that can be addressed. Eg putting in a reasonable sized lead section, jguk 13:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a few more days should be allowed because some of the people opining on this seem to be saying they're deliberating on their decisions. Michael Hardy 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, note that on Talk:List of lists of mathematical topics, User:OpenToppedBus, who has opposed the candidate on the basis of inadequate introductory material, has said that he/she is not far from switching his/her vote. --- Charles Stewart 15:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this to 13:00 GMT on 30 October to allow time for further improvements/comments, etc. I don't want to remove this nomination too hastily if it is going to meet the standard shortly - though I also don't want to keep the nomination open indefinitely. I hope that by Sunday things have resolved themselves, jguk 18:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not perfect yet - one or two sections still lack intros, and I agree with the comments below about the title - but there's no such thing as a perfect article. I'm happy to switch to support. Good work, everyone. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issues?

Following jguk's intent to close in three days, it seems that there have been two issues which have been live recently:

Are there any live issues with the page (ie. live issues that I have missed or disputes with the status of the above)? --- Charles Stewart 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think featuring should be rushed, but given the extra time granted I think it might be ready by Sunday. I think the introductory material could use some more eyeballs willing to tweak here and there, correct grammar etc. Some sections also lack intros -- just what is a mathematical object, anyway? (Please respond in a couple of sentences by editing at the aforementioned link!) Ben Cairns 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as a name goes, perhaps moving it to List of mathmatical topic lists would be better than a "list of lists of" as far as naming goes. It at least reads better.  ALKIVAR™ 22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More